D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

[pemerton]

Let me try again since I was unclear. We have been discussing D&D, so I assumed you'd stay within this system. If you established in 5e that dopplegangers were thin skinned and agile, would you keep the that way for other future campaigns using 5e and set within the same world if you had different PCs and/or players?

Again, maybe, maybe not. It would depend on how the future game played out.

If you're asking if I would feel any obligation to do so, no I wouldn't. I read differnent stories. I watch different films. I play different campaigns.

I said that adding those details is a boon to people new to D&D, less creative than you are, or who do not have the time to create all those details themselves.

Why is it a boon to be told that doppelgangers are grey and bald?

I was new to D&D once. I wasn't told that - I started with Moldvay Basic, and I never even encountered the 2nd ed AD&D description of doppelgangers until you posted it in this thread. Yet I feel absolutely no deprivation. That would not have been a boon to me.

There are two reasons why I think that it is not a boon. First, given that doppelgangers are shapechangers - that is what makes them interesting elements in the game - focusing attention on their "true" from distracts attention from their use in the game.

Second, should the need arise, for whatever reason, for a AD&D GM to describe a non-shapechanged doppelganger, s/he could either describe them from the picture (in which not onlhy are they bald, but have brains in lieu of scalps) or just make something up. The creativity needed to come up with something as vivid as "grey and hairless" is actually not all that much.

(Upthread you suggested that the picture wasn't enough to infer the harilessness because perhaps it was referring to a total lack of body hair. Has the question of whether or not doppelgangers have arm hair or leg hair ever come up in a game you've run? In over 30 years of GMing I've had hair colour come up and mater; and skin colour; and the size of body parts, in games where magic items don't automatically shrink or grow. But never the amount of body hair a humanoid has on its arms or legs.)

You keep saying that it's worthless to everyone, which is fairly arrogant.

You are the one who described the 2nd ed book as offering an impressive degree of lore.

If by "impressive" you meant word count, then I agree. There are many words,. But I took you to be saying that it is useful or valuable lore. And I do not think that being told doppelgangers are grey and hairless is useful or valuable. For reasons I've given, I would even go so far as to say it unhelpfully distracts from what is interesting about doppelgagners.

No doubt there are some players who, having been told that doppelgangers are grey and hairless, have used that in their games. Suppose instead the author had written that doppelgangers prefer to dine on buns during holiday season, no doubt that would have had some use by some players too. Would that suffice to make it "impressive" lore?

D&D has always provided lore and pinned things down. 2e more than any other edition, but all editions do it.

My assertion is that 2nd ed's approach to lore - reams of repetitive, redundant and banal stufff - is not essential to D&D. And here you are, in effect, agreeing with me! Because you note that 2nd ed AD&D differs from what preceded it.

Moldvay Basic didn't pin things down. OD&D pinned things down even less - if you look at the monster entries in Book 2 and Chainmail, you will see that they pin very little down. Your claim as to how D&D has "always" been is simply not true.

Given that it is not, in general, true of any art form that depth is proportionate to desriptive minutiae, why would this be true of RPGing?

RPGing is not like the others, so attempts to compare it to other art forms are flawed from the get go. Besides, I've already answered this several times in other ways in other posts by showing you how it helps new DMs, less creative DMs, and DMs with not enough time.

Given that I can compare books to film, film to painting, dance to music, and so on, I suspect that I can make fruitful comparisons between RPGs and other narrative art forms.

Be that as it may, you still have not answered the question. How does telling a new GM that doppelgangers are grey and bald add depth to their game? This question can be broken down into two parts: (i) why does knowing the true colour of doppelgangers add depth to a game? (ii) why does being told by someone else the true colour of doppelgangers add depth to my game?

Advice to a DM is, "If you want, you the DM can have dopplegangers follow PCs and try to catch them alone.". Lore is what they provided for dopplegangers. Lore can be very useful to DMs in planning encounters, but that doesn't make it advice.

You may recall that I described it as lore masquerading as advice. You are being taken in by the masquerade.

When it says that a doppelganger might follow someone to an inn, it is not calling out anything distinctive about doppelgangers (eg inns, but not a boarding house). It is just making a suggesgtion about how a GM might use a doppelganger (in an inn). And it is an obvious piece of advice.

I find it hard to believe that it would never occur to you to have a doppelganger follow a PC to the place the PC is going (be that an inn, a shop, a stable, or wherever).

 

[Maxperson]

Why is it a boon to be told that doppelgangers are grey and bald?

It helps the DM with the description of the creature. You may not need or want it. Others do.

There are two reasons why I think that it is not a boon. First, given that doppelgangers are shapechangers - that is what makes them interesting elements in the game - focusing attention on their "true" from distracts attention from their use in the game.

Sure, but they have a base shape and knowing that is a boon to DMs wanting to describe dopplegangers in their natural state.

Second, should the need arise, for whatever reason, for a AD&D GM to describe a non-shapechanged doppelganger, s/he could either describe them from the picture (in which not onlhy are they bald, but have brains in lieu of scalps) or just make something up. The creativity needed to come up with something as vivid as "grey and hairless" is actually not all that much.

Or they could do all of that AND have the extra added help provided by the MM.

(Upthread you suggested that the picture wasn't enough to infer the harilessness because perhaps it was referring to a total lack of body hair. Has the question of whether or not doppelgangers have arm hair or leg hair ever come up in a game you've run? In over 30 years of GMing I've had hair colour come up and mater; and skin colour; and the size of body parts, in games where magic items don't automatically shrink or grow. But never the amount of body hair a humanoid has on its arms or legs.)

Yes it has come up. With dopplegangers as I was describing those few dead ones in their natural state. I described them as completely hairless.

If by "impressive" you meant word count, then I agree. There are many words,. But I took you to be saying that it is useful or valuable lore. And I do not think that being told doppelgangers are grey and hairless is useful or valuable. For reasons I've given, I would even go so far as to say it unhelpfully distracts from what is interesting about doppelgagners.

Some people are impressed by a body builder breaking a weight records. I couldn't care less. Not impressive to me. This is the same. You are not impressed. That doesn't stop it from being impressive. A thing does not have to be impressive to everyone in order to be impressive.

No doubt there are some players who, having been told that doppelgangers are grey and hairless, have used that in their games. Suppose instead the author had written that doppelgangers prefer to dine on buns during holiday season, no doubt that would have had some use by some players too. Would that suffice to make it "impressive" lore?

Yes, to some people it would still be impressive lore. Especially those partial to buns.

My assertion is that 2nd ed's approach to lore - reams of repetitive, redundant and banal stufff - is not essential to D&D. And here you are, in effect, agreeing with me! Because you note that 2nd ed AD&D differs from what preceded it.

How do you get to agreement from me over it expanding prior lore? Especially since I don't agree that it's banal and never have in this thread, and you're the only one here saying that it's repetitive and redundant(not sure why you are repeating yourself and being redundant there). Different =/= banal or repetitive.

Moldvay Basic didn't pin things down. OD&D pinned things down even less - if you look at the monster entries in Book 2 and Chainmail, you will see that they pin very little down. Your claim as to how D&D has "always" been is simply not true.

Moldvay did pin things down. Ghouls were pinned down as "hideous, beast-like humans who will attack anything living AND Once an opponent is paralyzed, the ghoul will turn and attack another opponent, until either the ghoul or all the opponents are paralyzed or dead" and gnolls were pinned down as "Gnolls are beings of low intelligence that appear to be human-like
hyenas. They may use any weapons. They are strong, but dislike work and prefer to bully and steal for a living." The rest also pin things down just as I said. "very little" = some. Some = my claim being correct that all of them do it, but 2e doing it the most.

Be that as it may, you still have not answered the question. How does telling a new GM that doppelgangers are grey and bald add depth to their game? This question can be broken down into two parts: (i) why does knowing the true colour of doppelgangers add depth to a game?

Not knowing it means that I have to ignore it or come up with it on my own. In that case the game is doing nothing and is at a lesser depth than if it offered that information. It may not be a lot deeper because of the added information, but it does add a little bit more depth.

(ii) why does being told by someone else the true colour of doppelgangers add depth to my game?

That's up to you. You've said it doesn't for your game, so I accept that it doesn't for your game. My issue is with you arguing that it doesn't for the games of others.

You may recall that I described it as lore masquerading as advice. You are being taken in by the masquerade.

Not me. You've been taken in by your assumption that it's advice.

When it says that a doppelganger might follow someone to an inn, it is not calling out anything distinctive about doppelgangers

Yes it is. That's how dopplegangers act which makes that tactic distinctive to them. If you encounter shape changers that act differently, you can use that as a clue to rule out dopplegangers.

(eg inns, but not a boarding house).

Talk about banal. You know very well that it's just using inns as an example and that any they will follow to other locations.

It is just making a suggesgtion about how a GM might use a doppelganger (in an inn). And it is an obvious piece of advice.

Wrong. It's lore on the behaviors of dopplegangers and its there to inform, not suggest. The DM can use it or not, but using lore doesn't turn it into advice.

 

[Maxperson]

Here. To help you understand why the lore about dopplegangers following victims to locations is lore, I'm going to use real world example.

Bonobo chimps like to kiss and have sex. They do so to resolve conflicts, rather than fight. That's Bonobo lore. According to you, if I were to include that lore in a D&D write up on Bonobo chimps, it would cease to be lore and somehow become a suggestion that DMs use it.

The reality is that it would remain lore and not be a suggestion at all. The DM would be free to use it, or to ignore it if, say, he wanted an encounter with Bonobos that were just sitting around eating lunch. It's lore on Bonobo behavior, just like the doppleganger write-up is lore on their behavior. Use it if you want to. Ignore it if you want to. It's not a suggestion.

 

[billd91]

You may recall that I described it as lore masquerading as advice. You are being taken in by the masquerade.

When it says that a doppelganger might follow someone to an inn, it is not calling out anything distinctive about doppelgangers (eg inns, but not a boarding house). It is just making a suggesgtion about how a GM might use a doppelganger (in an inn). And it is an obvious piece of advice.

I find it hard to believe that it would never occur to you to have a doppelganger follow a PC to the place the PC is going (be that an inn, a shop, a stable, or wherever).

Does it honestly matter whether it's "advice" or "lore"? Doesn't that advice give you insight into the creature's likely modes of behavior? Doesn't behavioral advice rest on some assumptions based on lore about the creature?

I think there's some generally pointless semantic nitpicking going on here.

 

[Jer]

I think there's some generally pointless semantic nitpicking going on here.

Without pointless semantic nitpicking, the Internet would have 75% less traffic!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

Here. To help you understand why the lore about dopplegangers following victims to locations is lore, I'm going to use real world example.

Bonobo chimps like to kiss and have sex. They do so to resolve conflicts, rather than fight. That's Bonobo lore. According to you, if I were to include that lore in a D&D write up on Bonobo chimps, it would cease to be lore and somehow become a suggestion that DMs use it.

The reality is that it would remain lore and not be a suggestion at all. The DM would be free to use it, or to ignore it if, say, he wanted an encounter with Bonobos that were just sitting around eating lunch. It's lore on Bonobo behavior, just like the doppleganger write-up is lore on their behavior. Use it if you want to. Ignore it if you want to. It's not a suggestion.

I think that conflating fabricated lore for a fantasy world and actual observations of the real world might suggest a place where your and pemerton's perspectives may differ.

 

[TwoSix]

At a certain point, all threads become Disintegrate v. Wildshape.

I thought it was Katanas v. any other inferior thing.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

First, it is only the final comment that is Katana v. anything. BECAUSE THAT IS THE COMMENT THAT ENDS IT. KATANA WINS!

You're right, katanas not only disintegrate wildshaped forms, they disintegrate the original form, and the original form's mother.

I know this to be canon because I wrote it in the back of my 1e OA book.